Sociopath Community

My point is that whether or not something has value is not what determines whether or not it's an object. A working computer and a broken computer are both objects. To you, a sex partner and a vibrator are both objects, what determines value would be whether the tool serves a useful purpose.

Back to the conversation about dominance, it's an interesting study of perspective. It's possible that you would view your partner as an object you can use to obtain pleasure, while your partner views you as an object with buttons to push in order to cause a reaction. So, as a matter of idle curiosity, do you believe that objectification is inherently a form of domination?

by Storm

 

Everyone got defense mechanism to some degree... I don't really think there is much more to figure out than I already have. I've had this since childhood and I had a good upbringing so it must be something genetic. I don't think there is any point in dealing with it since I can handle it. I am discussing it right now, and that is perhaps dealing with it in some way.

I don't see violence as wrong either. It depends on the situation... My first reaction if someone has done something really bad against me, is that I want to kill the person. Also that I sometimes hate all people and the world. I actually seriously think that perhaps it would be better if the world ended. This is for personal reasons... Like if I can't be happy why should there be a world at all? That everyone would die is not so important.

There's a difference between sexual arousal from violence as you described in the beginning of the thread and the kind of violent urges you and thrill mention later. For example I get violent urges, a very strong desire to really harm the person that pissed me off, but there's nothing sexual about it.

As for really hating the world and all people... I think that's something different as well. Sounds more like pent up issues/frustration to me. Are you young and feel like you've been deprived of the freedom you need somehow?

The turn on could be novelty. Assuming only one role all the time can get a bit boring, and turning the tables can get exciting. And strong, dominant women have always been appealing to males. Maybe it has something to do with associating that kind of behavior with females being better at protecting offspring/family, who knows. (Much like big breasts are subconsciously associated with fertility/baby feeding? XD )

Also, lack of oxygen can have arousal effects in itself. It's why hang victims sometimes get errections.

To each their own reasons, I suppose, take Instrument for example. That freak must have a lot of deep seated self-hatred, if he gets off on being turned into a toilet, if you ask me.

by Synthetic

My point is that whether or not something has value is not what determines whether or not it's an object. A working computer and a broken computer are both objects. To you, a sex partner and a vibrator are both objects, what determines value would be whether the tool serves a useful purpose.

I own someone, the same way I own everything else in my house. They are my property. They have no value as a human being because in my mind, they are merely an object, a possession.

Back to the conversation about dominance, it's an interesting study of perspective. It's possible that you would view your partner as an object you can use to obtain pleasure, while your partner views you as an object with buttons to push in order to cause a reaction. So, as a matter of idle curiosity, do you believe that objectification is inherently a form of domination?

No. Objectification is simply a matter of perspective. I don't believe it is a form of domination. Dehumanization, on the other hand, is.

Dehumanization requires viewing someone as a human first and then dehumanizing them. I don't do that. To me, they are simply objects from the very beginning.

You are dehumanizing them, by pointing out that they have no value as a human being and contrasting it with viewing them as an object. I don't point out that my computer has no value as a computer in order to stress that it's an object.

If you see a difference between valuing someone as a human being and valuing them as an object, you are dehumanizing them, by having a preconceived notion of human value and then denying it to them.

From your perspective, what does it take to value someone as a human being?

by Synthetic

If you see a difference between valuing someone as a human being and valuing them as an object, you are dehumanizing them, by having a preconceived notion of human value and then denying it to them.

You can't dehumanize something if you didn't view it as a human to begin with. Talking about someone I own is no different than talking about my computer. They are both merely objects, possessions, things that I own. Nothing more, nothing less.

From your perspective, what does it take to value someone as a human being?

Respect, which must be earned.

Very interesting perspective. Thank you.

Good heavens no no! ew yuck! How could you possibly get turned on by violence!?! Just thinking of violence makes me feel terrible and sick in the stomach! You all need to go get your heads examined! crazy geez.

If you ever wanted to be dangerous, you probably shouldn't broadcast it over the net.

You'll only be caught easier.

Big brother is always watching us.

by Synthetic

You are dehumanizing them, by pointing out that they have no value as a human being and contrasting it with viewing them as an object. I don't point out that my computer has no value as a computer in order to stress that it's an object.

If you see a difference between valuing someone as a human being and valuing them as an object, you are dehumanizing them, by having a preconceived notion of human value and then denying it to them.

From your perspective, what does it take to value someone as a human being?

 Perhaps he means one man's junk is another's treasure.

What or who one person may consider value, another person may not value at all.